Blair's low-profile mistake

SHERLOCK Holmes was fond of referring to the clue of the dog that barked in the night. "But no dog barked," queried faithful Dr Watson. "Precisely!" explained Holmes.

Thus it is with the recent behaviour of the Prime Minister. The vital clue is not what he has done, but what he failed to do. Last week, as the enormity of the catastrophe in South-east Asia became clear, Mr Blair remained on his Egyptian holiday, steadfastly avoiding the television cameras. There is a good case for Mr Blair taking a rest, especially with his family. However, on no previous occasion had he failed to address the nation in time of tragedy, even to the point of interrupting a G8 summit to say a few words on the passing of Frank Sinatra.

On his return to Britain Mr Blair remained distinctly low-profile. Yesterday, while Europe paused in silent tribute to the dead of the tsunami disaster - which has claimed more British lives than any natural calamity in nearly a century - Mr Blair remained away from the cameras. His explanation is not unreasonable: that he has a proven ministerial team; that it is time to think long- term rather than react to events; that the British people don’t need him to articulate what they feel. Yet, Mr Blair’s claim to fame is precisely that - like Bill Clinton - he can transcend cynicism about politicians by speaking to people’s emotions and needs rather than using political jargon. Mr Blair’s failure to understand or articulate the national mood last week has undermined his position. His manifest refusal to understand this has caused even more damage, raising questions about his commitment to the job. Some have sought an explanation in ill-health for his uncharacteristic behaviour. There seems no evidence for this claim, but Mr Blair is unwise not to dismiss it formally, rather than make a joke of the suggestion.

The country needs reassurance - about South-east Asia, about the loss of British lives, about Mr Blair’s continued fitness for office - and leadership. So far, he has done a bad job of providing. He needs to start right away, by telling us he is in robust health, and by taking charge of the earthquake emergency.

Meantime, Mr Blair’s nemesis - Gordon Brown - has been launching his own personal election manifesto and grabbing the headlines in Mr Blair’s prolonged absence. However, Mr Brown must be careful his ego does not undermine the Prime Minister in such a way as to affect Labour’s election chances. The Blair-Brown team has been one of the most successful alliances in British history, with Blair the front man and Brown the intellectual powerhouse. Their attempt to reverse roles could backfire on each of them.

Quality is key in classroom

IT HAS been the conventional wisdom for decades that smaller class sizes are the way to improved educational performance. Thus every political party worth its salt has promised more classroom teachers, while the mantra of the teaching unions has been the need for higher pay to recruit more teaching staff.

However, new research from the prestigious University of London Institute of Education finds that class size (within reasonable limits) in primary schools seems to have no effect on academic progress in English, maths or science. In some instance, performance actually increased with class size.

It is important to examine this evidence critically. Clearly, very large classes have a negative impact through the pressures on the teacher, on classroom space and on the attention given to weak students. Equally, for the majority of average students, ever-smaller classes (which are expensive) produce only marginal benefits.

The sensible conclusion is that class size matters, but it cannot be the only thing that matters. There comes a point when teacher quality - that is, better trained teachers or more specialist teachers - is as important, or more so, than the quantity of teaching staff. Currently, Scotland faces an acute teacher shortage which must be addressed. But we must not forget that numbers won’t solve everything.

Presents to exercise or exorcise

A NEW study finds that expensive home exercise equipment often goes to waste. People get fed up with the monotony of a single kind of exercise, or they miss the companionship of the gym. As a result, while thousands of us wake on Christmas Day to the present of an exercise machine, our New Year resolution to shed pounds by riding an imaginary ten miles before work soon fades.

Consumer watchdogs are presenting this obvious fact as a cautionary tale against buying such expensive equipment, given its likely redundancy. However, it is here the researchers have got it wrong. Ordinary folk know that what something is purchased for is not necessarily what it is used for. Besides, who has the courage to throw out a present from a partner or close family member? Or admit publicly they are no longer losing weight?

Which explains the plethora of bicycle-shaped modern sculpture in many bedrooms. Or those hi-tech clothes horses, complete with computerised mileometer and covered in un-ironed underwear. Or, best of all, those fiendishly clever anti-burglar devices conveniently placed in the back bedroom, for any unsuspecting person to fall over in the dark.